Mr. Eusteed and Justice James Estoppel to the Defence of Usury.; SUPREME COURT CIRCUIT. Before Justice James.

James C. Griffin vs. Albert H. Wright. -- The trial of this action created considerable interest, from the fact that it was the one in which Mr. Busteed was counsel for the defendant, and about which he published a card reflecting upon Justice JAMES for allowing a judgement by default to be taken during his engagement in another Court. The default was subsequently opened.

The action was brought upon a promissory note, against the defendant as maker. The defendant, in his answer, admitted making the note, and the receipt of it by the plaintiff for value before maturity; and then set up the defence of usury with notice on the part of the plaintiff as to the character of the note prior to receiving it. It appeared, on the trial, that the note in suit was delivered to the plaintiff, accompanied by a certificate of the maker, in which it was stated that the note "was given for value, and would be paid when due." The Court held that the certificate, under the circumstances, was sufficient to fix the character of the note, and to act as an estoppel to the defence of usury. At the conclusion of the evidence on the part of the defendant, the Court directed a verdict for the plaintiff for $3,290 20, the amount of the note and interest.

Mr. Busteed obtained the usual time in which to make up a case for appeal.

We are continually improving the quality of our text archives. Please send feedback, error reports,
and suggestions to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.

A version of this archives appears in print on March 22, 1862, on Page 7 of the New York edition with the headline: Mr. Eusteed and Justice James Estoppel to the Defence of Usury.; SUPREME COURT CIRCUIT. Before Justice James. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe